Science... it's just a religion

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-origin.asp

I did say it came from an article -- and you yourself said that molecules destroy each other.

I think you're arguing more with yourself than you are with me. :\

Answersingenesis is not a credible source of scientific information.

Answersingenesis.org does not have reliable information on science. The information they present is skewed by their mission: to defend every word in Genesis as literal truth.

NOTE: This reply isn't directed at you, wandeljw, it just kind of spawned from what was going to be a simple response to your reply. Please don't interpret it as being personal -- you're one of the few people here who facilitates positive interaction. I just have a terrible habit of using the word "you" as if I'm speaking with the person my rant is directly applicable to -- in reality, I'm not targeting any one person and therefore it's not particularly justified, but again, just know that I'm speaking in generalities.



Good to know. I was weary of the source, but the information (to me) seemed valid.

I'm so tired of trying to find information that can't be tested -- not personally. It's a dead-end pursuit for anyone who lacks the laboratory setting to perform the experiments and observe the actual results for themselves. We can only trust the word and "evidence" presented by others.

Frankly, it's not a game I want to play and the constant attention to details (so much so that language itself is consistently questioned) is driving me insane. I trust scientific "authorities" about as much as I trust the US government, and I trust religious "authorities" even less (the pope is a laughing stock).

In the end, I trust only myself, and even that is evanescent; but even if I fully trusted myself, no one man can juggle the responsibility of truth. The mere pursuit would drive him mad -- and I find that I am slowly but surely going quite mad.

Realistically, I can only leave you all with this:

I believe in God because I must. I inject Him into the Universe because I must. If He does not exist, why do we persist? Our fate is inevitable -- we will die. We will perish. Not just one amongst us, but all of us; we are powerless against the majesty of the universe. To think otherwise is madness.

That is the beauty of mortality -- but what, truly, is mortality without the hope of immortality? Many seek it: some literally, by means of preserving their life; others philosophically, by writing themselves into history and the memories of all the people they affect.

But isn't that the thing? "Memory." What is memory? An arrangement of electrical signals in the brain? What is existence? An arrangement of charged and uncharged particles acting upon each other?

When a star explodes and its constituent particles break away from each other, is the information lost? When a person dies and the electrical signals within their brain dissipates, is that information lost? Are their memories and consciousness merely disassembled? It's obvious to say the charge is lost and that the person is dead... but that doesn't answer my question.

Also consider purpose. Everything that lives has a purpose. Everything that exists has a purpose and a function; but what purpose does humanity serve? We alone are consciously aware of our environment, and we alone can appreciate it in distinctly different ways than the rest of the animal kingdom; they are slaves to life, while we are its masters. We choose our fate in a way other animals cannot.

What function does that serve? What purpose? If the universe was not conscious, what benefit was there in giving an organism the power of choice? It was a detrimental choice to the overall balance of nature, for we upset it; and yet we are incapable of rising above it.

It's as if... it choose to make us its masters.

This is why you guys drive me nuts. You speak of what is, what can be observed... but you miss the big picture. You can break down the painting of life all you want -- the paints down to the pigments, the pigments to the molecules, the molecules to the atoms, the atoms to elementary particles... but what does it describe? Only the mechanism by which the painting "works" and exists -- not how or why.

How is the universe any different from a painting? In truth, it is not. You make it so -- but in the same way that I make God so. You choose to make that distinction. You choose to claim that God is not there. You choose to believe that the universe is not conscious, nor that it can ever be, and you choose to believe that we're random chance.

But how is that possible? Did ever a painting paint itself? Did ever a sculpture sculpt itself? No, artwork cannot create itself. But when you look out into the stars, the great expanse of space, and look unto your family and friends, and your pets, and your home, and society, and the world, and all that is presents to you... do you not see art?

Have you ever seen the images produced from random calculations? They are never pretty. They are formless -- devoid of patterns. But life and existence is opposite -- it is rigidly formed with patterns that may be observed and traced between every last event that has, will, or ever will happen. There is never a moment where something truly random occurs; upon further observation, you will see that the "random" event was actually a specific interaction or reaction between two things.

If random were possible in nature, time travel would not. We may argue that time travel isn't, but I continue to see more and more support for the idea of it. I, too, have come to see that it is possible -- because all things are possible. But if there had been a single random event in the history of the universe, then time travel and the calculations necessary to make a leap through time would be nigh impossible and the act of traveling across time and space would be extremely dangerous.

But instead, we've found that we can predict and measure... virtually everything. We struggle with the smallest constituents of matter and energy, but with greater understanding they too will fall within our comprehension. And what then? Frankly, I believe science will finally realize the truth: the universe is a highly complex and perfectly tuned "computer" system. Every interaction was prescribed before the first action took place -- and once it did, it produced a calculated cascade of reactions that went on to form existence as we know it.

Yes, I've stepped away from science completely for this post, but I had to. I've been going crazy. It baffles me how science can make impossible claims, but the moment you mention the idea or possibility of a higher power, it gasps and calls you a heretic.

Why is it so Goddamned ******* difficult to imagine, for one moment, that science is the product of a God who knows more than you know, and has done more than you will ever do?

There is no violation between science and religion at that point. He operates within the bounds of reality because He IS reality. And you might ask, "then why doesn't He reveal Himself?" Why would the very fabric of existence reveal itself? It was too much for the human brain to take in when the Bible was written -- do you believe we'd be prepared for that degree of truth now?

No. All will be revealed in time. It doesn't mean we should stop our scientific progress, but perhaps we should stop our scientific egos. It's just a thought.

In any case, I won't respond to any harsh reactions. I don't need a critical breakdown of this -- it was a personal rant. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to believe, only what I believe and why I believe it. I'm dedicated to what IS, but only in as much as it concerns what will be, and WHY. That is the fundamental question nobody seems to have an answer for: Why is the universe?

A few points:



What if it doesn't? I don't believe anything that lives has a purpose, or that there's an overall goal or a plan. At all. Why should there be? We can't see any evidence that this is true.



You're not looking at enough random pictures. If you saw a large enough body of them - say, millions or billions of them - some indeed would be pretty and some would resemble things in real life.

I think the numbers are working against yer mind here. The number of possible random pictures on a 128x128 grid is, if I remember correctly, somewhere around 3.85 × 10 to the 215th power. That's a lot of pictures! But some would resemble great paintings and a few would look... just like your face.



What impossible claims is science making? The whole point of science is to weed out the 'impossible' claims through repeated testing and experimentation.



No reason at all. I know this might bother you, but believe me - it's better that way. That way, you get to make your OWN reason for life. I recommend it.

Cycloptichorn

Hours after I posted that, I decided to give up on the idea of God.

I will always accept that his existence is possible -- and I will always accept that the universe has a potential purpose. However, if that is the case, then it is as I said: all will be revealed in time.

For now, it's suffice to just live.

That said, my little crusade is over. I will never stop educating myself, but it's taking a back seat to life right now.

A non-issue ! There is no way that an integral part of such a universe (you) can stand apart from the whole in order to ask that question. We are "questioning creatures" which construct pictures of "A universe" (not THE universe) according to our species specific needs. Every aspect of such a construction is anthropocentric in the sense that it relates to our evolutionary urge to predict and control..to see "pattern". But even the concept of time in which such prediction and control takes place....in which concepts of "before" and "later" play out their human significance....is a functional psychological construct.

To argue otherwise...to assume THE universe is accessible to observers.. is attract the label "naive realist" .......and the simplistic logic which ensues can tend evoke a "deity" to which the authorship of such a constructed "reality" is ascribed.

"and you yourself said that molecules destroy each other."

What are you talking about? I never said anything about molecules destroying each other, you did. I was quoting you... But I was pointing out a fallacy in your statements.

I was mistaken, here's what you said:



I need not explain its relevancy.

I was addressing your concept of the law of attraction. I felt you were leaving out the law of repulsion. I was trying to point out that molecules actually do repel themselves. If it were not the case then you would be sinking into the ground as we speak, or falling through your chair. The fact that you don't fall through them is due to those molecules repelling the molecules in your body from touching.

We call this force solidity but it is really just the repulsive force of electricity.

On a side note, one that you probably don't really care to hear. I would be more than happy to acknowledge the existence of a god, if one did exist. I just don't see anything that leads me to believe that one actually does, but I am more than happy to be corrected at any point on that. However; I am not the type of person that is going to go trying to plop in a god's existence for what ever reason, or because I desperately want a god to exist. I find that the universe is far more remarkable when you think that it all happened without any sort of interference from some god. To me the god idea cheapens it all and steals away the "magic" of the universe.

On top of that, when I look at the christian theology and see their depiction of this so called god, I see nothing but a tyrant blood thirsty petty being. The fact that they worship such a deity existing is sickening to me. One that would destroy the world because it didn't like how humans were behaving is pathetic. The fact that it would allow a being to be tortured for eternity simply because it did not believe is ridiculous. They admire such a deity, however; some don't admire it but they still want to believe that one exists anyways, so they try to reinvent the christian god into being something else. They come up with unsupportable lines like, god is love. Which nothing in their theology supports that one bit.

If god were loving, then whats the point in torturing it's creation with having to undergo horrible pain and suffering with diseases? Couldn't he have at least left out diseases? Oh wait, he didn't make disease, humans did for not obeying him, I forgot. It's all our fault that he allows us to be victims of disease. Absurdity that people make up excuses for such a deity. How about the reality? That diseases exist because they are pathogens to how our bodies function? A very natural explanation and why we are cursed with their existence.

I thought your view of God was more Deistic than Christian. If that's the case then I'm not sure what you're giving up exactly.

In my opinion, lieunacy was trying to apply the scientific method to determine the existence of a god. This is a mistake because the scientific method is not relevant for issues that are spiritual.

You are correct of course. But I'm not sure exactly what Lieunacy was/is doing. He's covering so much ground with his speculation that it's hard to make sense of it.

He did claim to me that he was intent on investigating religion using the scientific method. But it is also true that he's all over the road. When i asked him now he intended to accomplish that, what he thought the scientific method is, he was off on another tangent. Then, or not long afterward, i stopped attempting to talk to him.

No ****.

What I was once trying to do was simple. So simple, in fact, there should have been no need for explanation.

In a sentence: Describe how God can exist by describing, in turn, how and why the universe exists.

In the end, humans are incapable of discovering absolute truths because we, ourselves, exist within a relative one. That is my conclusion.

The reality of God and the universe will not be revealed to any living man.

Okay, If I were to accept that premise as being true, I have a question for you.

How could you even arrive at the concept of a god then? If you can not determine that one exists how the hell would you even consider that one even exists in the first place let alone what properties that god would have?

It is completely silly to say on one had that it can never be proven because of the scope of relative truths but then turn around and say that one does exist. How?

This brings me right back to my very simple question. Let's say that I know about an invisible car. You being curious start asking me questions about this invisible car, yet I can't even tell you what color it is, how many seats it has, or if it even has a radio. Yet I still insist that the car is real. How is it that I could determine that the invisible car is real when I can't even determine what the car consists of? All I can say is that the car is real and have absolutely NOTHING else to go on. Doesn't that sound at all insane? I hope you can draw the parallel here to my analogy question.

Science is theory and religion is faith,
If either were true, they would be called truth.
Mathematically the single truth of any equation as is the solution to every equation is =.
Equal is.
Be equal, be true,

=

Science is predictive, religion is not.
Science is falsifiable religion is not.
Science changes with experimental data, religion does not.

For believers in the afterlife, religion is the epitome of prediction.

I concur with your other points but theists operate a catch-all clause that their "Absolute Unchanging Truth" is embodied in an omnipresent deity who grants scientists their access to "knowledge".